Just found a debate at something called politicon (comicon for normies interested in politics?) featuring Cenk Ugyr vs Ben Shapiro
Thought's on the debate?

watching it right now and i'm wondering what's with this audience booing people as they come out =_=

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 5 2017 11:25pm

It was actually a good debate. They both responded to each other's points and stayed civil with each other. I'd say Shapiro had the better arguments overall. I didn't really like how cenk kept ridiculing the audience though. There was another debate there with Ana from tyt against Ann coulter

This post was edited by dark-soul on Aug 5 2017 11:48pm

English topic titles only in pard bro, reported

shapiro could have answered some things a lot better, but he still destroyed him.

Cenk's shtick is to act hyper-arrogant and posture.. came up way short on arguments and facts. the crowd turned against him and he started insulting the crowd for dumb reasons. Telling people to google things that prove him wrong was funny too.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 5 2017 11:51pm

Didn't watch it all but Cenk was in over his head imo, maybe it's just my bias.

Shapiro is a sharp & articulate lawyer, meanwhile Cenk reminds me of the guy at the bar that after 7 beers goes on a political rant that no one wants to hear.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Aug 6 2017 12:04am

saw this a few days ago, cenk arguing with the audience, calling them stupid, and saying "google it" was great

I mean, when they reject basic facts that's really the only response there is.

Ben is a scamer because he talks to fast ..Cenk is trying to explain logic to monkeys speaking slow ...

This post was edited by doomchaser on Aug 6 2017 02:00am

not persuasive

I watched it and thought Shapiro won by a distance. It was clear, at least to me, that he was too skilled a debater and sharp witted. In fairness, Shapiro has made a living from these kind of debates in addition to his journalism, whereas Cenk is less experienced in that regard and it showed.

That being said, I still think Cenk was mostly right on the issues but didn't make the correct points. For example, he was using large GDP growth in the 50's and 60's coupled with a 91% marginal tax rate and then essentially making the argument, "high taxes cause large GDP growth". The correct argument in my view would rather have been that high taxes weren't detrimental to the economy at the time, and then to use data on recent tax cuts for the rich that didn't have the positive growth effect that frauds like Laffer promised. Shapiro won on taxation, convincingly.

Cenk's strongest argument was on healthcare. He got Ben to allude to the fact he could take additional insurance if he wanted, which entails a better quality of care, but the existing burden of him paying health insurance for others would mean he and other rich people wouldn't be able to afford it. His weakest response of the debate.

This post was edited by dro94 on Aug 6 2017 02:40am